2017 Judiciary & Match Review

[Frank_Grimes]

Of course it's prejudicial haha
As one of the leagues leading officials and in his role as referees boss.
Coming out so strongly about the incident in anyway potentially impacts the decisions by the MRC who were yet to make a determination

Archer, or ANY official should not be making any comment on any incident of foul play that will attract attention of the MRC and judiciary

This kind of statement, hours after the completion of the game is totally unprecedented and for a good reason, because never before has anyone sought to attempt the influence the MRC process

The release simply should have said:

"It is important to note that Sia Soliola is on report and the matter will be addressed by the Match Review Committee, we understand the interest in this incident but no comment will be made until that process with the Match Review Committee is completed"

That's it. That's all he needs to say. Saying they got the decision right or wrong in terms of the send off, as a lead offical of the game, has the potential to influence the outcome of the process
That's prejudicial.

It's a basic premise of any fair disaplinary process.

You're still missing the very clear distinction between on-field decisions and the judicial process. One does not impact the other. Had Soliola been sent off it should not affect his result at the judiciary, and neither should the Ref's boss commenting about the performance of his referees in not sending him off.

It's a massive stretch to suggest that Archer's comments are an attempt to influence the MRC process. In fact it's just plain silly. Archer has done many things wrong in his time but to claim that he is being prejudicial here is just nonsense. As the referees boss he is obligated to make comment where an on-field decision is incorrect. This is one of those instances. He even prefaced his comments with a disclaimer about the incident itself and that the MRC would review. He ensured that he was only speaking to the on-field decision or lack thereof - as is his job to do. Can you imagine the uproar if he didn't address a howler of an on-field decision? I'm sure he's received criticism for it in the past.

The only thing that you have that could be even remotely seen as odd is the timing, but it is so far removed from preducial actions. Archer had every right (in fact he was absolutely required) to comment on the non-send off.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I thought you needed intent to be sent off and frankly I just don't see it.

Sure it was late, but no later then hundreds of other tackles that have been completely ignored, some of witch occurred in the same game, and it was high, but it was only high because Slater was falling, and don't get me wrong Sia should cop the full penalty for that, but I still don't see a send off because there was no serious foul play and intent to injure.

If Sia had bitten Slater, stomped him when he was prone, dangerously attacked a limb in a tackle (e.g. intentionally twisted an arm to break it, or preformed a spear tackle that left someone with a broken neck), attacked him when he was unconscious, king hit him, etc, etc, then I could see a send off, but for an accidental head high (no matter how serious) no, and I don't think that as a game we want to set that precedent either.

And lets be honest for a moment the only reason that this has caught so much media attention is because it was Slater that was knocked out, if the roles were reversed and it was Wighton that got knocked out, or almost anybody without the name recognition of Slater, then nobody would have jumped on Twitter demanding that it be a send off or writing articles about it, just like nobody is talking about Chanel Mata'utia getting knocked out or claiming that Ferguson should have been sent off for hitting him in the head with a forearm.

The things they look at for establishing intent in relation to high tackles are things like:

• Was the tackling player's fist closed or open when the arm hit the ball carrier? A closed or clenched fist is regarded as a sign of intent;
• Was the tackling player's forearm straight or bent when it hit the ball carrier? If it was straight, it is considered a "stiff" arm and is also regarded as a sign of intent.

Add in that it was late, and it does not help Soliola's cause at all.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I thought it was classy of Croker not to stand there and argue with the ref that Slater contributed to the seriousness of the tackle by slipping.

Just those little things that make up the character of a man.........

 

[rockcod]

I thought it was classy of Croker not to stand there and argue with the ref that Slater contributed to the seriousness of the tackle by slipping.

Just those little things that make up the character of a man.........

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but Croker did go to the ref and state that he was slipping, looks like the ref agreed so there was no need to argue.

 

[STORM.99/07]

Ask Tony Archer. He's just found him guilty before the MRC has looked at it.

The NRL just gets better and better every week.

Archer just made a statement that said he should have been sent from the field for that incident.
We all knew he should have been sent for the late,deliberate shot on billy.he had time to pull out of the charge as he was looking straight at Billy.hope he gets 6 weeks at least.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but Croker did go to the ref and state that he was slipping, looks like the ref agreed so there was no need to argue.

I said stand there and argue with him.

Never said he did not state it to the ref.

 

[skeepe]

Meanwhile Luke Brooks attacks Mitch Moses with a late, high, deliberate shoulder to the jaw and looks like he doesn't even get charged.

What an age we live in.

 

[Clifferd]

Meanwhile Luke Brooks attacks Mitch Moses with a late, high, deliberate shoulder to the jaw and looks like he doesn't even get charged.

What an age we live in.

Didn't look deliberate to me. If you've ever played a game of footy in your life I thought it was obvious he was just bracing himself/trying to charge down the kick

Penalty and that's it.

 

[skeepe]

The Raiders should just play a video of Minichiello assaulting Dugan in 2012 and ask for the same suspension (here's a hint... he got 0 weeks)

 

[betcats]

I don't know about exoneration but it's prejudicial and has removed the ability for Soliola to get a fair hearing
It's inexcusable, inappropriate and unprofessional and Archer should be stood down over it

It's disgraceful that he's released such a statement before the process has taken its course

On the hit itself, Sia apparently has a similar prior incident, that'll attract 20% loading. So I had it as a 4-6 week suspension, with the loading that'll be a 5-7 range now imo

No reason for Archer to come out like he did, he is a dud.

That being said Sia's guilt is not in question at all acting like it might be is stupid, 15 cameras caught him shorten up Slater by a head while the ball was already in the next players hands. The only question is how many weeks.

 

[skeepe]

No reason for Archer to come out like he did, he is a dud.

That being said Sia's guilt is not in question at all acting like it might be is stupid, 15 cameras caught shorten up Slater by a head. The only question is how many weeks.

That hit on Slater by a Raider or Knight: 12 weeks
That hit on Slater by another team's player: 2-3 weeks
That hit by Slater on a Raider: free to play next week, with the apologies of the NRL

 

[nick87]

No reason for Archer to come out like he did, he is a dud.

That being said Sia's guilt is not in question at all acting like it might be is stupid, 15 cameras caught him shorten up Slater by a head while the ball was already in the next players hands. The only question is how many weeks.

Absolutely
To me if gets less than 5 it will be soft and more than 7 would be harsh

 

[Captain Apollo]

Meanwhile Luke Brooks attacks Mitch Moses with a late, high, deliberate shoulder to the jaw and looks like he doesn't even get charged.

What an age we live in.

Only charge was a grade 1 tripping charge by Brooks on Moses which only attracts a fine. Source: http://www.nrl.com/brooks-fined-for-moses-trip/tabid/10874/newsid/110313/default.aspx

 

[Willie Ray]

A few years back some storm players were involved in a tackle that left a guy with a broken neck,one of them was charged and got eight weeks....pretty sure if soliola had permanently injured slater the nrl would've seen him hung by the neck from the nearest crossbar.
Rothfield is just a leech feeding off the game.

 

[nick87]

You're still missing the very clear distinction between on-field decisions and the judicial process. One does not impact the other. Had Soliola been sent off it should not affect his result at the judiciary, and neither should the Ref's boss commenting about the performance of his referees in not sending him off.

It's a massive stretch to suggest that Archer's comments are an attempt to influence the MRC process. In fact it's just plain silly. Archer has done many things wrong in his time but to claim that he is being prejudicial here is just nonsense. As the referees boss he is obligated to make comment where an on-field decision is incorrect. This is one of those instances. He even prefaced his comments with a disclaimer about the incident itself and that the MRC would review. He ensured that he was only speaking to the on-field decision or lack thereof - as is his job to do. Can you imagine the uproar if he didn't address a howler of an on-field decision? I'm sure he's received criticism for it in the past.

The only thing that you have that could be even remotely seen as odd is the timing, but it is so far removed from preducial actions. Archer had every right (in fact he was absolutely required) to comment on the non-send off.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e/news-story/918450e356ee2a0b2ea1d2e263d3c7d4

So archer consulted directly with a member of the MRC, knowing his statement would in fact be prejudicial AND as per the article according to Nrl guidelines officials are prohibited from making statements about incidents on report


So we have the head of officiating circumventing League guidelines in releasing a statement about an reported incident WITH the consulting of the panel that is set to determine the the charge

That's basically the definition of prejudicial mate

Archer has made a right f**king merkin of himself over this and should be sacked.

As stated above, none of this was required. Everyone with two eyes that aren't green could see what happened here and that the officials erred in not sending Sia off and a hefty stint on the sidelines was coming

What archer did was inappropriate, unprofessional and as it turns out, in complete contradiction to nrl guidelines

 

[Bazal]

The only things I have an issue with in this whole thing are that Sia stayed on the field, and that he's been referred directly to the judiciary. For me, that should only be for the offences that are outside those covered by the existing charge sheets. I'd have said a high grade reckless high tackle would have covered it.

So either the MRC are trying to influence the length of suspension by suggesting that it's outside the existing categories, or they genuinely think it's worse than the existing categories cover, which is patently wrong.

I have no issue with the referees boss saying the referee got it wrong. I'm no Archer fan but I'd be pissed if he backed the decision because it was clearly a send off and the blokes in the middle were too gutless to march him. We complain when he backs their f**k ups and complain when he criticises their f**k ups.

It also really pisses me off that a trip is now just a fine. I think that's disgraceful, but that's a different conversation.

 

[blaza88z]

I think the issue is that there's too many referees, in the old days the single referee would just walk up and point him to the sheds, now.. there's a committee meeting, I am sure the bunker is in their ear too

I think it will be a while before we see another hit like that but you'd hope that whoever it is gets marched

 

[nick87]

I'd be pissed if he backed their decision too. He can address whether the call is right or wrong with his team and make comment after the proceedings are complete
Until such time he shouldn't be commenting at all

Which is probably why he's prohibited from doing so by NRL guidelines

 

[Canard]

For mine Archer should be relieved of his position.

For the conduct of his staff, and his reaction afterward.

 

[Saxon]

That hit on Slater by a Raider or Knight: 12 weeks
That hit on Slater by another team's player: 2-3 weeks
That hit by Slater on a Raider: free to play next week, with the apologies of the NRL

Is that you Sticky?